4.3 Article

Results of Nailfold Capillaroscopy in Patients with Normal-Tension Glaucoma

Journal

CURRENT EYE RESEARCH
Volume 43, Issue 6, Pages 747-753

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/02713683.2018.1438632

Keywords

normal tension glaucoma; capillaroscopy; risk factors

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The aim of the study was to evaluate the results of nailfold videocapillaroscopic examination in patients with normal-tension glaucoma (NTG) in comparison to age-matched individuals without glaucoma and young healthy volunteers and to assess the relation between the results of this examination with clinical status in NTG group.Material and methods. The studied group consisted of 188 patients: 80 patients with NTG and 2 control groups (58 young healthy and 50 age-matched volunteers). The nailfold videocapillaroscopy (NVC) was performed in all participants. The results of every NVC were qualified as a normal or abnormal pattern. In the NTG group, ophthalmic examination was performed and medical history regarding glaucoma, chronic general disorders, and vascular risk factors was recorded.Results. In the NTG group, an abnormal NVC pattern was more common than in young controls (p=0.0008). Microbleedings were present more frequently in NTG patients (p=0.0365). Enlargement of capillaries (p=0.0006) and branching capillaries (p=0.0221) were more frequent in the NTG group compared to age-matched controls. Maximal intraocular pressure was higher in NTG patients with abnormal NVC pattern than with normal NVC (p=0.0000). Disc hemorrhages were more frequently observed in patients with abnormal NVC pattern (p=0.0313). Presence of paracentral scotoma was associated with abnormal NVC pattern (p=0.0054).Conclusions. Abnormalities in nailfold capillaroscopy are more frequent in NTG patients. The results of capillaroscopic examination differ in NTG patients according to the profile of ocular and general risk factor.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available